The Mac Pro page no longer mentions the ability to use SAS hard drives. When configuring the Mac Pro on the Apple Store, SAS hard drives are no longer an option. The Apple RAID card still does not support external connections.

They have the fiber card. The Raid card for SATA is also a SAS card.

You can buy the drives from many other dealers with the "Apple tax".

So what's the problem?

Quote:

There is still no mention of Crossfire or SLI support on the Mac Pro. A pair of high end Nvidia Geforce cards running SLI can provide better performance and cost less than a single Quadro card. But any time someone mentions a pair of SLI cards being a better value than a single Quadro card, some Apple apologist always responds with "Quadro is for professionals". So the Mac Pro does not support SLI because "Quadro is for professionals". Exactly how does that address the issue at all? And what if those "professionals" want more power than a single Quadro card can provide? On PCs. multiple Quadro cards can be used in SLI configuration. If a single Quadro card is so "professional" then wouldn't multiple Quadro cards running SLI be even more "professional"?

I suppose SLI or Crossfire would be nice. But it's not been much of a success. More talk than action. I'm not against it though.

Quote:

But according to Apple apologists, the Mac Pro does not support Geforce SLI or even Quadro SLI because "Quadro is for professionals". Also note that an Nvidia Quadro card is no longer an option for the new Mac Pro. How "professional" is that?

That's an interesting question.

It could be that the card is simply not ready yet.

And stop calling people "apologists". There are reasons for everything, and they are not necessarily your reasons all the time.

I have two 24" Samsung Monitors which I run through DVI. I want to buy the new Mac Pro with ATI 4870 card. But it only has 1 DVI port. Will I be able to connect one monitor to DVI port and one to Mini Display Port (Mini to DVI adapter) and run both with Extended Desktop mode?

At least part of the new cost is Apple's "greening" of the unit. Not only is green everything more expensive but Apple also probably has to pay the certification group EPEAT Gold their piece of the action and Energy Star as well. Also, the easy to disassemble / recycle case likely costs more to produce.

You might as well get used to paying these "green/energy" taxes in the US. Our government is planning on this kind of tax (only mandated) for pretty much everything.

I have a tech question though... Assuming operation under Snow Leopard for a myriad of uses including games, am I better off with an Octo 2.26 setup, or a Quad 2.93?

I have two 24" Samsung Monitors which I run through DVI. I want to buy the new Mac Pro with ATI 4870 card. But it only has 1 DVI port. Will I be able to connect one monitor to DVI port and one to Mini Display Port (Mini to DVI adapter) and run both with Extended Desktop mode?

At least part of the new cost is Apple's "greening" of the unit. Not only is green everything more expensive but Apple also probably has to pay the certification group EPEAT Gold their piece of the action and Energy Star as well. Also, the easy to disassemble / recycle case likely costs more to produce.

You might as well get used to paying these "green/energy" taxes in the US. Our government is planning on this kind of tax (only mandated) for pretty much everything.

I have a tech question though... Assuming operation under Snow Leopard for a myriad of uses including games, am I better off with an Octo 2.26 setup, or a Quad 2.93?

The previous generation Xeon Mac Pros costed out about equal, considering dual socket boards etc, but these look over expensive to me. I need AVCHD, so an upgrade is now urgent.

I may have to jump to Vista!

Or I could buy a second hand 8 core Xeon?

Am I missing something?

One reason why the Mac Pro, older models, and new ones alike, are so expensive, is because they are industrial quality machines. What your son will build is a lower grade home quality machine. It's NOT equal to a Mc Pro.

When PC companies come out with Xeon machines, they will cost about the same as a Mac Pro.

The i7 desktop chips are much cheaper than the workstation, server Xeons Apple is using.

That may be fine, or it may not.

An older machine, available at a discount is wonderful. nothing wrong with them, even the refurbished ones. But they go fast!

With that laundry list of components if you start getting strange behaviour or crashes
who are you going to call? None of those vendors are going to accept responsibility unless
you can pin the issue to them without a doubt.

He's a mod so he has a few extra vBulletin privileges. That doesn't mean he should stop posting or should start acting like Digital Jesus.- SolipsismX

I think with the previous generation, Apple probably had sales to non graphics/video people - maybe developers or just people who wanted something a bit better than the iMac. With these new models, due to the price bump, I suspect it truly will be only video/graphics people who buy them.

I think with the previous generation, Apple probably had sales to non graphics/video people - maybe developers or just people who wanted something a bit better than the iMac. With these new models, due to the price bump, I suspect it truly will be only video/graphics people who buy them.

Yup ..the Mac Pro is becoming more and more of a workstation, suitable for those with workstation budgets though the Quad Mac Pro isn't a bad deal for a prosumer. It offers the same build quality yet is likely a better fit for those looking for more flexibility and performance than the iMac currently offers.

I'm not really going to blame Apple on the pricing. They seem to have drawn a line in the sand.

Mac Pro = Workstation
Workstation = Xeon

Intel's the one charging a King's ransom for their chips. Had AMD been nipping at Intel's heels the pricing would likely be more competitive but Intel knows they have no threat from AMD.

He's a mod so he has a few extra vBulletin privileges. That doesn't mean he should stop posting or should start acting like Digital Jesus.- SolipsismX

As a long time PC guy (commodore 64 ring a bell) I have been ready to make the jump to the Mac Pro for some time, but was waiting to see the new updates. Trying to stay in the $2400 to $2800 range, do I get the previous gen dual quad core 2.8 which my local store still has, or do I go for the new single quad core 2.6? I am having a terrible time with this one. My local store is now discounting the previous gen to $2499 by the way. I am not real crazy about being limited to 8gb of ram, but hey what do I know? Photography is my main useage, lightroom, photoshop, etc. Any help?

Hi Bert,

What I understand and read, extra CPU has no advantage to PS and LR. The video card is more important. If you go for the "old" dual quad make sure you get an nVidia card instead of the base model card. However if you feel partial to the "new" Nelaham, this will be faster than the old duo quad for photography at least, especially for memory access, which photoshop/CR depends main on.

I, myself thought about the top iMac, but the idea of being limited to a seal in HDD is not a good idea. When you need 2 backups of your work. So hence the Pro is ideal choice for the serious photog. For mirroring and storage capacity. These days the full frame cameras are between 21-24 mega pixels, so a days shoot is going to eat between 4 -12 Gb a pop, then add your PSD files on top of your RAW this doubles again.

Curious to know what other PS users thinks on this matter, Top end iMac or quad core Pro, is there much in the difference ?

Apple should really bring a midrange tower. Something with the desktop Core i7. The Mac Pro is too much with its server-grade Xeon processors.

We've been talking about this for years.

Apple just doesn't see the need.

I would have bought two if they were better than buying an iMac. But both my wife and daughter wanted the 24" iMac. They've always had Mac towers before.

They both love them.

In fact, everyone I know who bought one loves them.

What some people here forget is that they are just a very small minority. Most consumers don't buy any peripherals other than a digital camera and a printer, with an internet connection rounding out the externals.

That's two USB connections plus, possibly, an Ethernet port.

A few actually connect their camcorder, but most don't.

That rounds out the majority of the iMac (consumer) market, and Apple knows it.

What I understand and read, extra CPU has no advantage to PS and LR. The video card is more important. If you go for the "old" dual quad make sure you get an nVidia card instead of the base model card. However if you feel partial to the "new" Nehalem, this will be faster than the old duo quad for photography at least, especially for memory access, which photoshop/CR depends main on.

I, myself thought about the top iMac, but the idea of being limited to a seal in HDD is not a good idea. When you need 2 backups of your work. So hence the Pro is ideal choice for the serious photog. For mirroring and storage capacity. These days the full frame cameras are between 21-24 mega pixels, so a days shoot is going to eat between 4 -12 Gb a pop, then add your PSD files on top of your RAW this doubles again.

Curious to know what other PS users thinks on this matter, Top end iMac or quad core Pro, is there much in the difference ?

Gavin

Last test in Macworld, the 3.06 GHz iMac beat out the mid range Mac Pro in PS. That's not surprising really.

PS is currently limited to two cores (for ordinary work, there is a way to get 8 cores to work, but that's another story).

For PS, the graphics card doesn't matter, though with 10.6 that may change somewhat.

Of course, the Nehalem chips change the game. They are so much more powerful than even the Harperstown that Apple has been using in the previous Mac Pros, that they should blast past the top line iMac again.

The single cpu four core machine is fine. That's like having two cpus, considering the new memory bandwidth of the chips.

The 2.66 GHz version I ordered should be a good deal faster than the previous 2.93 GHz version, and possibly as fast as, or faster than the 3.2 GHz version.

These chips are a game changer.

Until the iMac goes Nehalem later with the mobile Nehalem chips (unless Apple changes their minds and goes lower power desktop chips, which is possible later) the iMac will trail the lower Mac Pro.

But the iMac is pretty fast, so it may not matter unless, as I mentioned before, you're working with humongous sized files, which isn't likely.

Well, for everyone that wants to make excuses about the enormous price increase of mid-level Mac Pro configurations (bumping solely the CPU to dual 2.66Ghz from a base config gets you to $5000), I made a little chart. I knew despite the platform switch and all the hype that the new CPUs shouldn't cost much more than the older Harpertown Xeons did (when they were new). What I didn't realize is that the new Nehalems Xeons that the Mac Pro is using are even CHEAPER than their Apple equivalent from the old Mac Pro!

Disclaimers:
1) These prices were found from a few different sources, but I make no absolute guarantees that they are perfect.

2) These prices represent unit cost in batches of 1000 at the time of initial release. Remember, Apple does NOT lower their prices over the lifecycle of a certain model even though the CPU costs may drop somewhat. Regardless this point is moot anyhow as server grade CPUs don't change price much if at all until a new, faster model/series is released.

2) The single CPU xeon configuration (at least the base model) uses a different CPU from the Xeon 3xxx series. Price is unknown but should be somewhat similar to - if a little lower - than the equivalent of the dual-socket 5xxx series.

Well, for everyone that wants to make excuses about the enormous price increase of mid-level Mac Pro configurations (bumping solely the CPU to dual 2.66Ghz from a base config gets you to $5000), I made a little chart. I knew despite the platform switch and all the hype that the new CPUs shouldn't cost much more than the older Harpertown Xeons did (when they were new). What I didn't realize is that the new Nehalems Xeons that the Mac Pro is using are even CHEAPER than their Apple equivalent from the old Mac Pro!

Disclaimers:
1) These prices were found from a few different sources, but I make no absolute guarantees that they are perfect.

2) These prices represent unit cost in batches of 1000 at the time of initial release. Remember, Apple does NOT lower their prices over the lifecycle of a certain model even though the CPU costs may drop somewhat. Regardless this point is moot anyhow as server grade CPUs don't change price much if at all until a new, faster model/series is released.

2) The single CPU xeon configuration (at least the base model) uses a different CPU from the Xeon 3xxx series. Price is unknown but should be somewhat similar to - if a little lower - than the equivalent of the dual-socket 5xxx series.

I'm not one to complain too much about pricing but it appears that Apple's recession strategy is clear. They are going to ensure they have the margins they need to ride through the chop.

If I take a $2499 Quad Core Xeon

Subtract:

$400 for the CPU
$200 for the RAM
$150 for the case
$70 for the HDD
$100 for the GPU
$200 for the Mobo
$30 for the optical
$40 for the input devices

I'm still not coming close to figuring out where the fantom $800 or so dollars comes from. I can so no reason why the Quad Mac Pro should cost $2499. I can't see it.

There is a healthy amount of margin in the new iMac and Mac Pro undoubtedly. I highly suspect that both will be revamped fairly soon in their cycle in particular the iMac when Core I5 becomes available. The Mac Pro may get a bump to 3.2Ghz and if we're lucky the pricing will shift down.

He's a mod so he has a few extra vBulletin privileges. That doesn't mean he should stop posting or should start acting like Digital Jesus.- SolipsismX

Last test in Macworld, the 3.06 GHz iMac beat out the mid range Mac Pro in PS. That's not surprising really.

PS is currently limited to two cores (for ordinary work, there is a way to get 8 cores to work, but that's another story).

For PS, the graphics card doesn't matter, though with 10.6 that may change somewhat.

Of course, the Nehalem chips change the game. They are so much more powerful than even the Harperstown that Apple has been using in the previous Mac Pros, that they should blast past the top line iMac again.

The single cpu four core machine is fine. That's like having two cpus, considering the new memory bandwidth of the chips.

The 2.66 GHz version I ordered should be a good deal faster than the previous 2.93 GHz version, and possibly as fast as, or faster than the 3.2 GHz version.

These chips are a game changer.

Until the iMac goes Nehalem later with the mobile Nehalem chips (unless Apple changes their minds and goes lower power desktop chips, which is possible later) the iMac will trail the lower Mac Pro.

But the iMac is pretty fast, so it may not matter unless, as I mentioned before, you're working with humongous sized files, which isn't likely.

For current CS3/4 probably doesn't make any difference, but Aperture heavily depends on Quartz, I'm not sure if Lightroom does. As and when SL shows his faces more stuff could be handled by the GPU but knowing Adobe they won't take advantage of it till CS5.

Yay, a price increase. Sounds like Apple's suffering from their OWN reality distortion. Apparently "innovating through a recession" means innovative accounting.

Yeah, they seem to be innovating unheard of kinds of margins. Premium pricing times 2 or 3

Quote:

Originally Posted by Aizmov

Apple should really bring a midrange tower. Something with the desktop Core i7. The Mac Pro is too much with its server-grade Xeon processors.

They did, that's what the quad core chips are. The xeon 3500 is the i7 with ECC memory support at the same price. They just raised the prices dramatically. The build costs for the new Mac Pros seem to be roughly that of the single CPU G5s they just raised the margin from the 30% range to unheard of territory.

Quote:

Originally Posted by abeel

Which to buy - I have been waiting to upgrade my dual core G5 running Premier:

The MacPro being what it is, could easily be designed so that a new motherboard (along with the new memory and processor architecture), could be dropped in, but yet again they haven't done that either. I'm just saying that with the almost complete lack of upgradeability from the flagship model introduced just last year, this thing might as well be a sealed box.

If you take a closer look at each generation of the Mac Pro, you would notice that each is customized around it's motherboard. Each chipset/CPU combination used has different thermal requirements as well as different memory, which has necessitated design changes.

These aren't generic PC's - big empty boxes that take generic components with cables running all over the place. These machines are engineered and tailored for their specific components. That attention to detail is what makes them extremely quiet (esp. compared to their generic PC brethren) and also easier to upgrade then comparable PC's.

I, for one, appreciate the way Apple designs their machines. There isn't much value in being able to change out a motherboard - once you start changing two or more of CPU/Motherboard/Memory/Video Card you are almost always better off just building a new machine. Your pining for a false value proposition.

And you can upgrade the CPU on your existing Mac Pro - google around. It's not Apple sanctioned, but there are those who have done it. Other then CPU and Memory (which are always tied together) you can change everything else out between the old system and the new system - just like on PC's! There is nothing special here with Apple, nor is Apple being restrictive. If you want to complain about lack of upgradability, you could argue that Mac GPU choices are severely restricted from those available to Windows PC's and I would heartily agree, but to state that "almost complete lack of upgradability" exists is just ignorant.

To me, other then getting Nehalem the biggest advantage of the latest Mac Pro is finally ditching fully buffered DIMMs! That's probably responsible for as much of the speed increase as the new CPU's - FB DIMMs are latency filled evil....

It pains me to see what Apple is charging its customers for HD and RAM upgrades.

Not that I'm excusing Apple in the least, but unfortunately it's no different then any other vendor out there. They count on most people not wanting to do the upgrades themselves after the fact and charge accordingly for the convenience

I'm not one to complain too much about pricing but it appears that Apple's recession strategy is clear. They are going to ensure they have the margins they need to ride through the chop.

If I take a $2499 Quad Core Xeon

Subtract:

$400 for the CPU
$200 for the RAM
$150 for the case
$70 for the HDD
$100 for the GPU
$200 for the Mobo
$30 for the optical
$40 for the input devices

I'm still not coming close to figuring out where the fantom $800 or so dollars comes from. I can so no reason why the Quad Mac Pro should cost $2499. I can't see it.

There is a healthy amount of margin in the new iMac and Mac Pro undoubtedly. I highly suspect that both will be revamped fairly soon in their cycle in particular the iMac when Core I5 becomes available. The Mac Pro may get a bump to 3.2Ghz and if we're lucky the pricing will shift down.

So, two 2.26Ghz Nehalem Xeons are $848 cheaper than two 2.8Ghz Harpertown Xeons, yet this generation Octocore Mac Pro is $500 more expensive at retail price. Is that really accurate?

This generation graphics card is cheap’n’cheerful (Nvidia just rebadged an old card from 2007), the memory is cheaper (though you get more of it), the motherboard should be cheaper (less complex thanks to integrated memory controller and quickconnects). Why isn’t this generation cheaper than the last, let alone more expensive!? I love my Mac Pro, and we want to order 4 of them, but the $2000 ($500X4) retail premium for cheaper (424*4=$1696 cheaper) CPUs over the previous generation is outrageous. Could someone please point out what is wrong here, why is this gap so big (is 'greening' the Mac Pro really *so* costly)?

Since the i7 is pretty much functionally the same as the xeon in the quad Mac Pro, seems like a totally valid comparison to me. Yes, I know there are minor differences (what besides ECC memory support?), but anything that would impact actual real world performance? Is there any reason to expect the quad MP to outperform the i7 dell?

Quote:

Originally Posted by melgross

And stop calling people "apologists".

You'll probably see the end of "apologists" when people stop calling people "whiners".

Quote:

Originally Posted by melgross

One reason why the Mac Pro, older models, and new ones alike, are so expensive, is because they are industrial quality machines. What your son will build is a lower grade home quality machine. It's NOT equal to a Mc Pro.

So what difference will a user see when running the same app on both machines? Slower app performance? More crashes? I'd like to know specifically.

Quote:

Originally Posted by DocNo42

Yeah, and where are you going to get the non-shipping CPU's the new Mac Pro uses?

Anyone think that the big price bump is due to supply constraints and Apple is just looking to take advantage of early adopters in the short term (in fairly small quantities), then either bring prices back down or bump all models back to 8 cores within a few months?

I really suspect that people buying now will end up feeling like real suckers when the next update comes along - the big question is how soon will that be?

So, two 2.26Ghz Nehalem Xeons are $848 cheaper than two 2.8Ghz Harpertown Xeons, yet this generation Octocore Mac Pro is $500 more expensive at retail price. Is that really accurate?

That seem to be accurate. Also, the chipset seems to be roughly the same price as the old 5400 and DDR3 ECC memory is a lot cheaper than the old FB-DIMMs. In fact, the quad core models might actually be similar to the old $1499/1699 powerMacs in production costs. It appears either intel is sticking to Apple or Apple is sticking it to the buyer...or both.

Quote:

Originally Posted by minderbinder

Here's a question.

Anyone think that the big price bump is due to supply constraints and Apple is just looking to take advantage of early adopters in the short term (in fairly small quantities), then either bring prices back down or bump all models back to 8 cores within a few months?

I really suspect that people buying now will end up feeling like real suckers when the next update comes along - the big question is how soon will that be?

I'm hoping this is only due to what intel is charging Apple and not some severe "we're the only one that can make OSX computers so we can extort whatever we want" case of greed. If its the later, they're showing Microsoft things about abusing users they never knew of. The new ones left premium pricing so far in the rear view mirror they can't see it anymore.

And this was exactly what I hoped Apple would do, mainly to cut costs on the bottom range of workstations. Instead they jacked up the price to astronomical amounts. Folks, this is a $1799 computer at best. I can get it with an ADC discount at $1999 but it's still over priced IMO.

And this was exactly what I hoped Apple would do, mainly to cut costs on the bottom range of workstations. Instead they jacked up the price to astronomical amounts. Folks, this is a $1799 computer at best. I can get it with an ADC discount at $1999 but it's still over priced IMO.

Yeah, you're looking at the old low end PowerMac with a massive price increase. The price of the 8-core models can be explained if they had a discount deal and intel is charging them more. The quad core isn't see easy to explain without higher margins. Its much cheaper to produce than the old 2.83ghz model and even cheaper if they're using the x58SP northbridge instead of the x58DP in the 8-cores.

Okay after a nights sleep and throwing this around I may need to recant my previous buying statement.

I'll mainly need a new machine to run FCP Studio, which of course includes Motion that needs the horsepower so-to-speak. Considering pricing would I be happier with a previous version 2.8Ghzx2 for $2698 or the current 2.66Ghzx2 for $4304. Is the $1600 difference worth it for my application. Will the new bus speed and CPU design outweigh the price difference? I'm still getting to know FCP, yet I tend to hang on to a machine for a while and don't want to feel real limited in a few years if I went with the older model.

In either machine:
Video cards I would swap out in 6 mos for possibly an ATI Radeon HD 4870.
I have two 1TB Seagates and two WD Velociraptor's that I would drop in, so drives aren't an issue.
And of course I'd increase RAM in 6 mos.

I don't want to go iMac, so please don't suggest it.

Thanks for any help.

--------------------------"Why join the navy if you can be a pirate?"-Steve Jobs

I have two 24" Samsung Monitors which I run through DVI. I want to buy the new Mac Pro with ATI 4870 card. But it only has 1 DVI port. Will I be able to connect one monitor to DVI port and one to Mini Display Port (Mini to DVI adapter) and run both with Extended Desktop mode?

Once you buy the DP to DVI adapter from Apple... for 99 bucks (plus tax, thus over 100 bucks)!

And this was exactly what I hoped Apple would do, mainly to cut costs on the bottom range of workstations. Instead they jacked up the price to astronomical amounts. Folks, this is a $1799 computer at best. I can get it with an ADC discount at $1999 but it's still over priced IMO.

Yes based on what I can see the Quad Mac Pro is a $2k computer with a hefty margin appied. It's going to get ugly when the PC World rags of the world start showing the basic $1200 Core I7 pc beating the Mac pro in performance

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tony1

Okay after a nights sleep and throwing this around I may need to recant my previous buying statement.

I'll mainly need a new machine to run FCP Studio, which of course includes Motion that needs the horsepower so-to-speak. Considering pricing would I be happier with a previous version 2.8Ghzx2 for $2698 or the current 2.66Ghzx2 for $4304. Is the $1600 difference worth it for my application. Will the new bus speed and CPU design outweigh the price difference? I'm still getting to know FCP, yet I tend to hang on to a machine for a while and don't want to feel real limited in a few years if I went with the older model.

In either machine:
Video cards I would swap out in 6 mos for possibly an ATI Radeon HD 4870.
I have two 1TB Seagates and two WD Velociraptor's that I would drop in, so drives aren't an issue.
And of course I'd increase RAM in 6 mos.

I don't want to go iMac, so please don't suggest it.

Thanks for any help.

I'd grab the more affordable 2.8Ghz system. Nehalem is a great architecture but it's the Tick of the new architecture meaning that Intel's "Tick Tock" strategy is to deliver a new architecture every two years followed by a process shrink. The former 2.8Ghz Xeons were the "tock" of the last architecture. You may want to take advantage of the pricing advantage and that will easily carry you for a few years by the time you upgrade your Mac Pro you'll be looking at Sandy Bridge which will bring 4Ghz and 8-cores on a single die. You can't lose either way it's going to take a year to two years for Apple to get their apps and 3rd parties multithreading their apps properly to take advantage of these cores.

He's a mod so he has a few extra vBulletin privileges. That doesn't mean he should stop posting or should start acting like Digital Jesus.- SolipsismX

I'll mainly need a new machine to run FCP Studio, which of course includes Motion that needs the horsepower so-to-speak. Considering pricing would I be happier with a previous version 2.8Ghzx2 for $2698 or the current 2.66Ghzx2 for $4304. Is the $1600 difference worth it for my application. Will the new bus speed and CPU design outweigh the price difference? I'm still getting to know FCP, yet I tend to hang on to a machine for a while and don't want to feel real limited in a few years if I went with the older model.

Wait for MacWorld's benchmarks next week or so. With 16 virtual cores, the new 2x2.66 GHz should blow the old eight-core 2x2.8GHz out of the water.

I would bet money that, all things considered, the new 2.93 Quad will turn out faster than the old eight-core 2x2.8. It had better; it costs $200 more. Of course, you can't throw as much RAM into it. But with at least one early benchmark on the processors alone showing new 2x2.8 configurations outpacing the old 2x3.4's by a huge margin (177%), I'd bet the new 2x2.26's are faster than the old 2x2.8's, as well.

Another thing to factor in is the cost of RAM. Aren't FB-DIMMs more expensive than DDR3 1066?

Multiplex is an online comic strip about the staff of a movie theater.

Anyone think that the big price bump is due to supply constraints and Apple is just looking to take advantage of early adopters in the short term (in fairly small quantities), then either bring prices back down or bump all models back to 8 cores within a few months?

I really suspect that people buying now will end up feeling like real suckers when the next update comes along - the big question is how soon will that be?

That seems very likely. After all, these are chips that aren't officially out yet/

Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"

Yes based on what I can see the Quad Mac Pro is a $2k computer with a hefty margin appied. It's going to get ugly when the PC World rags of the world start showing the basic $1200 Core I7 pc beating the Mac pro in performance
.

Performance per dollar is a metric which Apple is now and henceforth oblivious to.

They could care less how 'bad' they look in such comparisons. They live in fantasy world with the motto "we're so thin and we run x(ten)". It even rhymes.

I'm really at a point where I cannot find an Apple desktop machine to meet my needs under $2k.

I'll look again this fall but for the first time in 4 years, I'm actually going to look at pcs with win 7 if its available. Times are tough and either Apple can provide me a machine that'll last 4-5 years or they can't and I will look elsewhere.

It sucks. I really would prefer to stay on the osx platform, but I don't get to make product development decisions at Apple.